Nobody needs an introduction to the controversies attached to Lalu Prasad Yadav. Neither are people of India unaware of the unprecedented deterioration brought by his rule to the state of Bihar in last 15 years. The ouster of Lalu and his government during last assembly elections says it all.
Lalu's ouster however, has given him opportunity to cause an image makeover and the shrewd politician has made full use of it. The Bihari politician with a 'katori' hair-cut and a rustic lifestyle has proved that one must not go by his ‘dehati’ looks to gauge his capabilities as a progressive minister. It is true that the remarkable turnaround of the so far loss-making railways is not solely a result of Lalu becoming the Union Railway Minister. The buoyant economy that has caused an increase in travel demands has contributed significantly in turning the Railways into a profit making entity. The significant thing on Lalu’s part is that he has managed to ride on this wave and take it to the next level. There are mainly three people behind the remarkable progress of Indian Railways. But good strategies do not necessarily turn into reality if the minister in charge does not possess the acumen to think beyond the populist Aam-admi syndrome. Unlike most of the earlier Railway ministers, who sought to introduce passenger-centric, socialist policies - which almost always have led the Railways to incur heavy losses - Lalu has proved to be different. He has been receptive to the suggestions of his advisors that there is nothing but benefit to make Railways competitive, and look out for ways to make profits without forgetting the socialist roots Railways has adhered to.
Indian Railways, the largest government employer in the country has always been a generous employer and no minister would seek to reduce its redundant workforce in order to up the profits. Lalu is not an exception either. But he does understand the value of roping in private players wherever possible in "new" ventures that railways plan to undertake. Rather than following the often hurting rather than helping conventional wisdom of experimenting with general class passenger fairs and introducing populist policies, he is trying to experiment with the higher class fairs hoping to attract more high-end travelers. He wants to make Railways compete with the prospering Airline Industry and knows that this won’t happen unless Railways has more to offer than just cheaper fares. In order to make travelling by train more pleasant, he has initiated strategies to set up vending machines, invite McDonalds to set up shops at railway stations, set up hi-speed wireless internet zones in waiting rooms of railway stations in big cities, subjecting various arms of Railways to audits from renowned international auditing firms for recommendations for improvements, handing over catering to private parties, making e-ticketing possible, making railway tickets available at petrol pumps and other places outside Railway stations, etc. Another aspect of revenue generation is enhancing the freight carrying capacity. In any developed country, freight is a major revenue generating wing of Railways. But in India, freight potential has been grossly underestimated. Lalu's budget has encouraged freight revenue. The Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) project, inviting private vendors into businesses associated wagon manufacturing and rentals, etc. are a few highlights.
The more admirable part of the privatization attempts by Lalu is that he is managing to do so without inviting criticism from Left parties which are always eager to thwart every attempt by a government agency to privatize or disinvest. Lalu even manages to cast a magic spell strong enough to earn Left’s admiration.
Another important example where Lalu stands out is his recent statement over the Sethu-Samudram controversy. When Congress submitted an affidavit in the apex court questioning the existence of lord Ram, none of the UPA allies cared to react. Lalu was the first UPA ally to criticize Congress by stating that Ram lives in hearts of millions of countrymen and there is no question of questioning his existence. On the contrary, the left allies expressed discontent over Congress’s withdrawal of the controversial affidavit rather than the affidavit itself. What else can one expect from the comrades who argue that religion has no place in their ideology? Ask the Left to take a similar stand on faith of minority religions and it would be crystal clear how quickly it would dump this ideology. Congress is no different either. It wouldn't have dared to question religious beliefs of minority communities and nor should it do so. But it has no right to take the majority community for granted. Lalu was quick in pointing this out to his ally. Be it the ‘opportunist’ politician inside him or the ‘sensible’ one that prompted him to do so, he surely made heads turn in approval.
Authored by : Mandar Garge
October 15, 2007
October 4, 2007
PM should be careful about his statements on Pakistan
No matter which party is in power at the center, all parties should have a basic minimum "toughness" factor in matters related to policies towards Pakistan and Bangladesh. What is required even more is consistency among the different netas within the UPA itself.
During NDA regime, when India and Pakistan were on brink of a war, the Congress led by Sonia Gandhi, voiced an opinion that India should teach Pakistan a lesson and that any step in direction of a war would strongly be supported by the Congress led opposition. The same Congress is quite often proving to be very soft on Pakistan. Although a war with Pakistan is definitely a bad idea and there is no external threat to India by our ‘dear’ neighbor, internal threat is grave concern, and UPA needs to stick to its earlier stand, now that is in power.
Take for instance the 7/11 bomb blasts in Mumbai trains in 2006, following which our PM suspended all peace dialogs with Pakistan, till it showed concrete evidence of curbing terrorism. A very welcome stand indeed. But then what went wrong during the NAM (Non-Alignment Movement) summit at Havana just two months later (September)? PM was expected to reiterate India’s earlier tough stand to Musharraf who also attended the summit. Instead PM returned home declaring that Pakistan was itself a victim of terror caused by extremist groups that are “beyond its control”. Beyond its control ? That is simply unacceptable to Mr. PM. Are you sure, because the world is going to take the leader of the largest democracy pretty seriously.
In contrast, just few days after this event, the Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai slammed Musharraf for "not doing enough" to stop those madrassas in Pakistan that were "sanctuaries" for extremists. Our PM just deprived India of a chance to make its longstanding claims about Pakistan’s threat to its internal security, look even more credible after Karzai's statements.
Also in another incidence later in 2006 - just days after the then Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced that there was *no* decrease in terrorist insurgencies across the border from POK, Dr Singh said that cross border infiltration has gone down considerably. That not only made defense ministry’s claims look pale but also irked the defense forces.
India definitely wants peace and surely wants Pakistan to concentrate more on its own development by enhancing economic trade with India rather than spending its money and energy on weakening India. But Pakistan is yet showing no signs of realizing this. Until it does, our leaders, no matter which party they represent, need to talk tough.
Dear PM, we don't want another Nehru when it comes to policies against Pakistan in today’s world. We need a Sardar Patel, or even better - a Indira Gandhi, whose tough stand made her father's soft handling of Pakistan look much inferior.
Authored by: Mandar Garge
During NDA regime, when India and Pakistan were on brink of a war, the Congress led by Sonia Gandhi, voiced an opinion that India should teach Pakistan a lesson and that any step in direction of a war would strongly be supported by the Congress led opposition. The same Congress is quite often proving to be very soft on Pakistan. Although a war with Pakistan is definitely a bad idea and there is no external threat to India by our ‘dear’ neighbor, internal threat is grave concern, and UPA needs to stick to its earlier stand, now that is in power.
Take for instance the 7/11 bomb blasts in Mumbai trains in 2006, following which our PM suspended all peace dialogs with Pakistan, till it showed concrete evidence of curbing terrorism. A very welcome stand indeed. But then what went wrong during the NAM (Non-Alignment Movement) summit at Havana just two months later (September)? PM was expected to reiterate India’s earlier tough stand to Musharraf who also attended the summit. Instead PM returned home declaring that Pakistan was itself a victim of terror caused by extremist groups that are “beyond its control”. Beyond its control ? That is simply unacceptable to Mr. PM. Are you sure, because the world is going to take the leader of the largest democracy pretty seriously.
In contrast, just few days after this event, the Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai slammed Musharraf for "not doing enough" to stop those madrassas in Pakistan that were "sanctuaries" for extremists. Our PM just deprived India of a chance to make its longstanding claims about Pakistan’s threat to its internal security, look even more credible after Karzai's statements.
Also in another incidence later in 2006 - just days after the then Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced that there was *no* decrease in terrorist insurgencies across the border from POK, Dr Singh said that cross border infiltration has gone down considerably. That not only made defense ministry’s claims look pale but also irked the defense forces.
India definitely wants peace and surely wants Pakistan to concentrate more on its own development by enhancing economic trade with India rather than spending its money and energy on weakening India. But Pakistan is yet showing no signs of realizing this. Until it does, our leaders, no matter which party they represent, need to talk tough.
Dear PM, we don't want another Nehru when it comes to policies against Pakistan in today’s world. We need a Sardar Patel, or even better - a Indira Gandhi, whose tough stand made her father's soft handling of Pakistan look much inferior.
Authored by: Mandar Garge
September 30, 2007
Deal Ya No Deal, its time to teach Left a lesson
Time is just right for UPA to seriously rethink about continuing its marriage with the Left. UPA’s strategy to engage with the comrades, even though their ideologies don’t overlap by an inch, just in order keep NDA away from power, has indeed burned UPA several times. We can only hope that it has realized its mistake.
Whether nuclear deal is justified or not, is still debatable and more than half the nation probably feels that way. But the important thing is, as always the Left has managed to oppose a policy that is going to bring energy as well as economic benefit to India. The Left, comprised mainly of CPI(M) and CPI, is supposedly worried that the deal would jeopardize India's nuclear sovereignty. Since when did Left become concerned about India's nuclear sovereignty? Their acceptance of Chinese nuclear test in 1964 and their opposition to the Pokhran tests in 1998 - an episode that should bring pride to every Indian - seems to strike a contradictory note. Has the Left undergone a transformation? Indeed not. Their concerns stem from the fact that their ideology cannot permit alignment with Unites States, their ideological foe. If this deal would have been proposed by China, the comrades would have upheld it as an important deal for the progress of the nation. Succumbing to Chinese pressure wouldn't have been a problem either. After all, their criticism of Pokhran blasts emerged from their deep concerns about China-India relations. The Left doesn't even see how China is relishing the failure of Indian government to push the deal through. But that does not bother the communists, for ideological principles are above national interests, even if these principles serve other nations more than the nation they claim to be concerned about.
The hardliner Marxist, Prakash Karat, General Secretary of CPI(M) has managed to attract enough media attention with his threats to rock the UPA government. Now it’s time to act with sensibility - a term Indian communists are oblivious to. The people of India have got fed up of the constant threatening by the CPI(M)-CPI duo, to pull down a government that is trying to implement reforms. It’s indeed time to shun their support.
One can scan the recent three year record of the Left and easily understand how passionately the CPI(M) and CPI have tried to obstruct every economic reform initiated by the government. It's for a reason the Left is perceived as being anti-development. Prakash Karat and his politbureau badly lost a chance to derive advantage from golden opportunity the 2004 general elections offered them - a chance to participate in governance at national level and prove that the Left also can be progressive. Instead they have managed to convey to Indian citizens outside the bounds of West Bengal and Kerala - a message that says out loud - "Bring us to power and we promise that we will undo the economic progress India has achieved". Thanks for the offer, but we citizens definitely are not ready to see our nation turn into another West Bengal or Kerala. The miserable performance on economic front of West Bengal and 100 percent literate Kerala in last two decades speaks volumes about your abilities to govern.
Had the communists actually been a part of the government instead of externally supporting it, not a single reform would have got pushed through. Their inner voice which guided them to stay out of the government has turned out to really be a blessing in disguise for the nation and probably the only thing they we can thank the communists for - for letting UPA achieve something rather than nothing. Laloo and his likes are much more favorable allies because they at least don’t come in the way of economic reforms. Even the BJP-led opposition has supported all reforms.
There has been a clear sign of presence of factions in the communist parties, especially CPI(M), who believe that it’s high time the communists learnt to come to terms with a world the modern day people prefer. These members know that they cannot afford to ignore how West Bengal desperately needs foreign investment and America is the biggest investor in the country. The CM of W Bengal - Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee recently spoke in favor of clearing the Nuclear deal as it would bring energy - something that W.Bengal badly needs to industrialize. There were indications of the Left's treat fizzling out when another high profile CPI(M) politbureau member - Jyoti Basu made a similar statement about how Left should go for the deal and not withdraw support. But he soon made a complete U-turn and preferred to stick to, probably unwillingly, the Left's collective decision of reviving the threat.
A recently conducted survey by TOI reveals that 58 percent of respondents feel that the UPA should break ties with the Left and gear up for re-elections. Many reformist leaders in the Congress party feel the same way. Congress should realize that the deal is at stake in any case. It either has to concede to Left's demand in order to stay in power for the remainder of the term or go ahead with the deal, in which case the Left may pull down the support and stop the deal. Even if the Left is able to keep UPA away from the deal till the end of 2007, their goal would still be achieved as, 2008 being the year of US presidential elections, the US Congress would have no time for the deal.
If the deal is anyway not to go through, it’s not a significant loss to India because there are still some unresolved issues, but it probably makes lot of sense for Congress to end relationships with the Left. A survey about early polls indicated that Congress would manage to bag as many as more than 260 Lok Sabha seats. Analysts say that this is the best Congress can achieve. The survey also indicated the Left parties would suffer significantly. Even BJP would lose seats as its anti-US stand has not gone down well with the middle class which forms BJP's main support base. Sure, the country would have to go through mid-term elections which would cost the country's exchequer dearly. But citizens would reconcile themselves by looking at it as a readjustment of the 5-year election cycle. If, with this heavy cost of elections, we manage to rescue the remaining two years from Left's clutches, the money is well-spent and would be more than offset by the fast paced economic reforms that could be achieved in those two years free of Left's intervention. Moreover, the deal is not the only problem the Left has with India-US relations. It is now demanding a complete turnaround and wants India out from the strategic alliance with the US. The left leadership has a serious problem in realizing how much Indian economy benefits from alliance with the US.
UPA was in a much better shape to break ties with Left during the earlier phase of Left threats. But instead of riding on this anti-Left wave, it has hurt its prospects of winning close-to-majority seats by making a highly controversial affidavit in context to the Sethu Samudram project that questioned the existence of Lord Ram. This may help the BJP a bit, but not significantly. BJP stands to loose significantly due to anti-incumbency factor in the states it currently rules.
Its less significant whether the mid-term polls benefit the Congress or the BJP. The most significant outcome is that the nation stands out to benefit the most, as the polls would manage to rescue it from Left's stranglehold, and the time is just right for that.
Whether nuclear deal is justified or not, is still debatable and more than half the nation probably feels that way. But the important thing is, as always the Left has managed to oppose a policy that is going to bring energy as well as economic benefit to India. The Left, comprised mainly of CPI(M) and CPI, is supposedly worried that the deal would jeopardize India's nuclear sovereignty. Since when did Left become concerned about India's nuclear sovereignty? Their acceptance of Chinese nuclear test in 1964 and their opposition to the Pokhran tests in 1998 - an episode that should bring pride to every Indian - seems to strike a contradictory note. Has the Left undergone a transformation? Indeed not. Their concerns stem from the fact that their ideology cannot permit alignment with Unites States, their ideological foe. If this deal would have been proposed by China, the comrades would have upheld it as an important deal for the progress of the nation. Succumbing to Chinese pressure wouldn't have been a problem either. After all, their criticism of Pokhran blasts emerged from their deep concerns about China-India relations. The Left doesn't even see how China is relishing the failure of Indian government to push the deal through. But that does not bother the communists, for ideological principles are above national interests, even if these principles serve other nations more than the nation they claim to be concerned about.
The hardliner Marxist, Prakash Karat, General Secretary of CPI(M) has managed to attract enough media attention with his threats to rock the UPA government. Now it’s time to act with sensibility - a term Indian communists are oblivious to. The people of India have got fed up of the constant threatening by the CPI(M)-CPI duo, to pull down a government that is trying to implement reforms. It’s indeed time to shun their support.
One can scan the recent three year record of the Left and easily understand how passionately the CPI(M) and CPI have tried to obstruct every economic reform initiated by the government. It's for a reason the Left is perceived as being anti-development. Prakash Karat and his politbureau badly lost a chance to derive advantage from golden opportunity the 2004 general elections offered them - a chance to participate in governance at national level and prove that the Left also can be progressive. Instead they have managed to convey to Indian citizens outside the bounds of West Bengal and Kerala - a message that says out loud - "Bring us to power and we promise that we will undo the economic progress India has achieved". Thanks for the offer, but we citizens definitely are not ready to see our nation turn into another West Bengal or Kerala. The miserable performance on economic front of West Bengal and 100 percent literate Kerala in last two decades speaks volumes about your abilities to govern.
Had the communists actually been a part of the government instead of externally supporting it, not a single reform would have got pushed through. Their inner voice which guided them to stay out of the government has turned out to really be a blessing in disguise for the nation and probably the only thing they we can thank the communists for - for letting UPA achieve something rather than nothing. Laloo and his likes are much more favorable allies because they at least don’t come in the way of economic reforms. Even the BJP-led opposition has supported all reforms.
There has been a clear sign of presence of factions in the communist parties, especially CPI(M), who believe that it’s high time the communists learnt to come to terms with a world the modern day people prefer. These members know that they cannot afford to ignore how West Bengal desperately needs foreign investment and America is the biggest investor in the country. The CM of W Bengal - Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee recently spoke in favor of clearing the Nuclear deal as it would bring energy - something that W.Bengal badly needs to industrialize. There were indications of the Left's treat fizzling out when another high profile CPI(M) politbureau member - Jyoti Basu made a similar statement about how Left should go for the deal and not withdraw support. But he soon made a complete U-turn and preferred to stick to, probably unwillingly, the Left's collective decision of reviving the threat.
A recently conducted survey by TOI reveals that 58 percent of respondents feel that the UPA should break ties with the Left and gear up for re-elections. Many reformist leaders in the Congress party feel the same way. Congress should realize that the deal is at stake in any case. It either has to concede to Left's demand in order to stay in power for the remainder of the term or go ahead with the deal, in which case the Left may pull down the support and stop the deal. Even if the Left is able to keep UPA away from the deal till the end of 2007, their goal would still be achieved as, 2008 being the year of US presidential elections, the US Congress would have no time for the deal.
If the deal is anyway not to go through, it’s not a significant loss to India because there are still some unresolved issues, but it probably makes lot of sense for Congress to end relationships with the Left. A survey about early polls indicated that Congress would manage to bag as many as more than 260 Lok Sabha seats. Analysts say that this is the best Congress can achieve. The survey also indicated the Left parties would suffer significantly. Even BJP would lose seats as its anti-US stand has not gone down well with the middle class which forms BJP's main support base. Sure, the country would have to go through mid-term elections which would cost the country's exchequer dearly. But citizens would reconcile themselves by looking at it as a readjustment of the 5-year election cycle. If, with this heavy cost of elections, we manage to rescue the remaining two years from Left's clutches, the money is well-spent and would be more than offset by the fast paced economic reforms that could be achieved in those two years free of Left's intervention. Moreover, the deal is not the only problem the Left has with India-US relations. It is now demanding a complete turnaround and wants India out from the strategic alliance with the US. The left leadership has a serious problem in realizing how much Indian economy benefits from alliance with the US.
UPA was in a much better shape to break ties with Left during the earlier phase of Left threats. But instead of riding on this anti-Left wave, it has hurt its prospects of winning close-to-majority seats by making a highly controversial affidavit in context to the Sethu Samudram project that questioned the existence of Lord Ram. This may help the BJP a bit, but not significantly. BJP stands to loose significantly due to anti-incumbency factor in the states it currently rules.
Its less significant whether the mid-term polls benefit the Congress or the BJP. The most significant outcome is that the nation stands out to benefit the most, as the polls would manage to rescue it from Left's stranglehold, and the time is just right for that.
Authored by: Mandar Garge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)